kishoph Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 This is what I was thinking last night, Kassian needs to be a force, with hits, fights, cheap shots, anything. We need a guy other teams fear. Kassian has turned into every other Sabre who would rather skate away from the rough stuff rather than initiate it. It's a shame. Is this is the way they are coached ? I'd have no other explanation other than coaching, a player ex. Kassian does not alter his game so much unless he is being told to do so, if he did, I'm sure the coach (a good coach) would not let it happen, unless he approved. I like the way Kassian's Offensive game is going, but I'd sure like for him to be more of a intimidating player, such as a Lucic when he's out there. I believe he could be that type of player and the Sabres sure could use a forceful player that can take the game to the opposition instead of always just waiting to react to what the other team is doing. I totally blame Lindy for the softness of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Someone (carp? chz?) posted a link a week or two ago showing +/- against the quality of competition. That's really important, to me. If MAG is playing mostly against guys who don't score (and I believe that's what the linked stats pointed out), then why do I care whether he's a +12 or whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 well said. I absolutely loved him in the Leafs game. Didn't watch much of the Pens game. but he didn't look as awful in the sens game as people are saying IMO. I didn't think he was as bad as Leopold. Leopold was atrocious for some reason. He is usually pretty solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted December 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Someone (carp? chz?) posted a link a week or two ago showing +/- against the quality of competition. That's really important, to me. If MAG is playing mostly against guys who don't score (and I believe that's what the linked stats pointed out), then why do I care whether he's a +12 or whatever? I posted it. Feel free to stalk my posts to find it. No time till tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 That makes sense to me. Our system does seem to put a lot of pressure on the d-men to do a little bit of everything. I was just tooling around with some stats and what jumped out was how little we've scored when our stay-at-home guys were on the ice (Regehr, Weber) relative to the puck-mover types. I watch almost every game and am not enamored with stats, but some just jump out at you. If we have to have puck moving d-men to score goals then I can see why Lindy has favored MAG over Weber. Which is an inherent flaw in the GM's decision of what players to get in here, and IMO, is why the team can't have sustained success in the playoffs. Everything gets tighter, more defensive oriented and more physical come playoff time and in order to generate offense we have to pinch our defensemen and have them carry the puck up ice. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Which is an inherent flaw in the GM's decision of what players to get in here, and IMO, is why the team can't have sustained success in the playoffs. Everything gets tighter, more defensive oriented and more physical come playoff time and in order to generate offense we have to pinch our defensemen and have them carry the puck up ice. :wallbash: I don't think it was like that prior to Drury and Briere leaving. I suspect Lindy has gone to a defense-led attack because of our situation at center ice. IOW, I think the system is in response to the personnel available, NOT that the personnel were selected to meet the system. But I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't think it was like that prior to Drury and Briere leaving. I suspect Lindy has gone to a defense-led attack because of our situation at center ice. IOW, I think the system is in response to the personnel available, NOT that the personnel were selected to meet the system. But I could be wrong. Oh I agree, LR is adjusting his system to provide the best chance at success in his opinion. The impetus lies with Darcy to recognize that by not providing puck carriers and NHL caliber players at the center position, he has forced his coach to play a less than ideal NHL system to overcome his shortcomings of not providing the right player mix to win consistently, and more importantly, in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I didn't want to quote about 20 posts but the whole Weber versus MAG debate is sad. Everyone who thinks Mike Weber is the reason we lost the Ottawa game needs to go back and watch it all again. McNabb nudges Neal instead of taking him out of the play and then Leo cant cover the guy going to the net and BAM! the first goal. Weber is about 1 second off on his coverage and he lets a goal go and because its the game winner he cost the game... nope Goose takes a stupid penalty with 3 minutes left resulting in a PPG and theres the game. So who is responsible? The team. The team lost the game. How many games will you win by only getting a 1 goal win? I am not sure how many 1-0 wins in regulation or OT have even occurred this year in the entire NHL. You can not win a game by scoring 1 goal. You can't win a game when you are pinned down the entire night and fighting to break out of your own zone. You can't win a game when your team gives about 10% effort. Is MAG better than Weber, defensively not a chance in hell. Obviously on the offensive side he is. But I have been watching and MAG and his +/- is an anomaly. Case in point. McNabb in the toronto game I believe it was, is stickless but manages to kick the puck up and out of the zone where staff flicks it to roy who then goes in and gets the goal. MAG who did nothing got a +1 because McNabb changed and MAG was on the ice for a grand total of 2 seconds... His +/- is not a good measure of his defensive ability. Also note that our forwards are horrendous right now. The couldn't score in a ###### house. If it takes a puck moving defender to make our offensive go then wave goodbye to any stanley cup dreams. In the playoffs the neutral zone is a locked down and you need for forwards to get into the zone. It clearly does not work having 5 puck movers and 1 stay at home guy. Darcy and Lindy have put together a team that has been revealed to be fundamentally flawed from its overall makeup to its lack of leadership. My simple point is that Mike Weber is a much better defensemen than MAG and if you watch the games it is quite easy to see why. Strong on the puck, good first pass out of the zone, keeps it simple. Is not afraid to light someone up. Doesn't shoot the puck into the shin pads of every one he sees. Mike Weber has shown more in his limited time on the ice than MAG has in a 1/3 of a season IMHO. I'll hang up and listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I didn't want to quote about 20 posts but the whole Weber versus MAG debate is sad. Everyone who thinks Mike Weber is the reason we lost the Ottawa game needs to go back and watch it all again. McNabb nudges Neal instead of taking him out of the play and then Leo cant cover the guy going to the net and BAM! the first goal. Weber is about 1 second off on his coverage and he lets a goal go and because its the game winner he cost the game... nope Goose takes a stupid penalty with 3 minutes left resulting in a PPG and theres the game. So who is responsible? The team. The team lost the game. How many games will you win by only getting a 1 goal win? I am not sure how many 1-0 wins in regulation or OT have even occurred this year in the entire NHL. You can not win a game by scoring 1 goal. You can't win a game when you are pinned down the entire night and fighting to break out of your own zone. You can't win a game when your team gives about 10% effort. Is MAG better than Weber, defensively not a chance in hell. Obviously on the offensive side he is. But I have been watching and MAG and his +/- is an anomaly. Case in point. McNabb in the toronto game I believe it was, is stickless but manages to kick the puck up and out of the zone where staff flicks it to roy who then goes in and gets the goal. MAG who did nothing got a +1 because McNabb changed and MAG was on the ice for a grand total of 2 seconds... His +/- is not a good measure of his defensive ability. Also note that our forwards are horrendous right now. The couldn't score in a ###### house. If it takes a puck moving defender to make our offensive go then wave goodbye to any stanley cup dreams. In the playoffs the neutral zone is a locked down and you need for forwards to get into the zone. It clearly does not work having 5 puck movers and 1 stay at home guy. Darcy and Lindy have put together a team that has been revealed to be fundamentally flawed from its overall makeup to its lack of leadership. My simple point is that Mike Weber is a much better defensemen than MAG and if you watch the games it is quite easy to see why. Strong on the puck, good first pass out of the zone, keeps it simple. Is not afraid to light someone up. Doesn't shoot the puck into the shin pads of every one he sees. Mike Weber has shown more in his limited time on the ice than MAG has in a 1/3 of a season IMHO. I'll hang up and listen. I agree with you to an extent. Lately Weber has been more hesitant to light someone up, and has been a little less effective on the puck. I'm only talking his last couple games. I'm not saying by any means he was the reason for any single loss, as I agree with you that Leo and others were to blame more. I do believe that he's lost some confidence or something, making him hesitate and be 1 second off on a play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 He's baaaaaa-aaaaack Kidding aside, welcome back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.